Polish equatives as symmetrical structures 63
typically followed by an instrumental case marked nominal predicate.^1 Likewise, to
links two nominative case marked pronouns, which is also the case in other types of
copular clauses with to.^2 Furthermore, equatives can also exhibit both copulas simul-
taneously, as shown in (3) below:
(3) Ja to (jestem) ty.^3
I.nom cop am you.nom
‘I am you.’
However, the verbal copula in the present tense can always be omitted, which is impli-
cated by the brackets around jestem ‘am’ in (3). In the past or future tense, the situation
is different. If the past or future tense form of the verb być ‘to be’ is left out, as in (4)
and (5) below, the sentences are fully grammatical with the sole pronominal copula
- However, być + DPnom sentences can also be predicational, as can be seen by comparing
(i) with (ii) below:
(i) Ja jestem student.
I.nom am student.nom
‘I am a student.’
(ii) Ja jestem studentem.
I.nom am student.inst
‘I am a student.’
Sentence (i) is a slightly marked variant of a more common predicational structure in Polish
such as (ii), in which the predicate does not bear nominative, but is assigned instrumental case.
Whereas the nominative case marked predicate in (i) has an expressive function, and can convey,
for instance, annoyance, sentence (ii) with the instrumental predicate tends to be neutral (for a
detailed analysis of być + DPnom sentences, cf. Bondaruk 2013b).
- As we shall see in Section 3, to can also be found in predicational as well as in specifica-
tional copular clauses, and in either of them it links two nominals bearing the nominative case. - Although the word to found in (3) might look like an emphatic marker, common in Polish
copular clauses and elsewhere, cf. (i) below, in fact it represents a true pronominal copula:
(i) Marek (to) kupił ten samochód, a nie Darek.
Mark.nom emph bought this car and not Darek.nom
‘It was Mark who bought this car, not Darek.’
The emphatic to is omissible, as the brackets around it in (i) above indicate. Although it is
possible to omit to in (3) as well, which yields sentence (1), it is clear that sentences such
as (3), in which it is the verb być ‘to be’ which is omitted, are also perfectly fine. Since both
the omission of to and the omission of być ‘to be’ is possible in sentences such as (3), the
conclusion must be drawn that to in (3) is not just a marker of emphasis, but a true copula and,
hence, (1) and (3) represent two instances of equatives.